Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnos et al. (US 20200102078 A1) in view of McPhee (US 3829906 A), and further in view of Newburger (US 3614791 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Gnos teaches an enclosed space, comprising: a toilet (Fig. 3 element 9) moveably secured to one or both of a floor or one or more walls, wherein the toilet comprises a bowl having a base, and a drain extending through the base (“FIG. 9 shows a waste hose 21. The open end of the waste hose, i.e. the loose end which is closest to the viewer of FIG. 9, is configured to be connected to a bottom of the toilet bowl 9 (not shown in FIG. 9)” Par. [0067] lines 4-7), wherein the toilet is configured to be moved between a toilet deployed position and a toilet retracted position, wherein the toilet in the toilet deployed position allows an individual to sit on the toilet, and wherein the individual is unable to sit on the toilet in the toilet retracted position (Shown in transition between the retracted position shown in Fig. 1 and the deployed position in Fig. 3); and a flexible conduit (Fig. 9 element 21) connected to the drain, wherein the flexible conduit is configured to connect the flexible conduit to a waste removal tank (Fig. 9 element 22).
Gnos fails to explicitly teach a surface of a seat of the toilet in the toilet retracted position is parallel with the one or more walls, and the flexible conduit is exposed when the toilet is in the toilet retracted position.
However, McPhee teaches a surface of a seat of the toilet in the toilet retracted position is parallel with the one or more walls (Fig. 2 element 23).
Gnos and McPhee are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory unit systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toilet seat of Gnos to fold parallel to the wall in the retracted state as disclosed by McPhee. Doing so would allow the toilet to be stowed in a manner which would require less volume of the lavatory space.
Gnos and McPhee fail to explicitly teach the flexible conduit is exposed when the toilet is in the toilet retracted position.
However, Newburger teaches the flexible conduit is exposed when the toilet is in the toilet retracted position (Flexible conduit shown to be exposed in transition between Fig. 8A and 8B where the flexible conduit connected to element 12 is shown in the folded position).
Gnos, McPhee and Newburger are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory unit systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toilet system of Gnos in view of McPhee to have the exposed flexible conduit as disclosed by Newburger. Doing so would reduce the cost of the system as less material is needed to cover the internal toilet components while allowing for a reliable drainage system.
Regarding Claim 2, Gnos, McPhee and Newburger teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Gnos further discloses the enclosed space is a lavatory (Fig. 3 element L).
Regarding Claim 3, Gnos, McPhee and Newburger teach the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Gnos further discloses the lavatory is within an internal cabin of a vehicle (“It is also known to install a toilet in the front of the cabin and to allow transforming a part of the front of the cabin into a closed lavatory compartment when using the toilet” Par. [0005] lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 4, Gnos, McPhee and Newburger teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Gnos further discloses the toilet is pivotally coupled to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls (Shown in transition between the retracted position shown in Fig. 1 and the deployed position in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Gnos, McPhee and Newburger teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Gnos further discloses the bowl has a fundus shape (Fig. 3 element 9).
Regarding Claim 23, Gnos, McPhee and Newburger teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Gnos further discloses the toilet in the toilet deployed position is in an outwardly unfolded position having a distal end extending toward a center of the enclosed space, and wherein the toilet in the toilet retracted position is upwardly folded having the distal end extending upwardly toward a ceiling of the enclosed space (Shown in transition between the retracted position shown in Fig. 1 and the deployed position in Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnos et al. (US 20200102078 A1) in view of McPhee (US 3829906 A), in view of Newburger (US 3614791 A) and further in view of Fullerton (US 20190118948 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Gnos, McPhee and Newburger teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Gnos, McPhee and Newburger fail to explicitly teach the toilet pivotally couples to the one or more walls by a pivot axle extending through at least a portion of the bowl.
However, Fullerton teaches the toilet pivotally couples to the one or more walls by a pivot axle extending through at least a portion of the bowl (“The distal end wall 224 may then be grasped so that the basin 104 may be pivoted downward in the direction of arc A about a pivot axle 230 defined between the proximal end wall 222 and the support panel 106” Par. [0037] lines 4-8).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Fullerton are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of pivotable lavatory structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the toilet of Gnos to be connected to the wall by a pivot axle through a portion of the bowl as disclosed by Fullerton. Doing so would allow for a reliable pivot attachment between the bowl and the wall.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnos et al. (US 20200102078 A1) in view of McPhee (US 3829906 A), in view of Newburger (US 3614791 A), in view of Fullerton (US 20190118948 A1) and further in view of Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Fullerton teach the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Fullerton fail to explicitly teach the pivot axle comprises a gear that is configured to cooperate with a reciprocal gear that is on or within the one or more walls.
However, Pho teaches the pivot axle comprises a gear that is configured to cooperate with a reciprocal gear that is on or within the one or more walls (“The actuator system can include a motor that drives a gear coupled to the turntable module” Col. 6 lines 47-49).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger, Fullerton and Pho are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of pivotable lavatory structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pivotable toilet of Gnos with the gear system disclosed by Pho. Doing so would allow the toilet to reliably pivot and would further allow the pivot to be automatic if desired. Using gears to pivot lavatory structures is known in the art and is not considered novel.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnos et al. (US 20200102078 A1) in view of McPhee (US 3829906 A), in view of Newburger (US 3614791 A) and further in view of Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Gnos, McPhee and Newburger teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Gnos, McPhee and Newburger fail to explicitly teach a sink moveably secured to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls, wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position and a sink retracted position, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet, and wherein a water-retaining capacity of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position.
However, Pho teaches a sink moveably secured to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls, wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position (Shown in Fig. 3A) and a sink retracted position (Shown in Fig. 6), wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet, and wherein a water-retaining capacity of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position (The amount of water retained in retracted position shown in Fig. 6 would be less than in the deployed position shown in Fig. 3A).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of pivotable lavatory structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lavatory system of Gnos to have the retractable sink structure as disclosed by Pho. Doing so would allow the lavatory to have a larger sink when a sink is desired and more lavatory space when a sink is not desired.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnos et al. (US 20200102078 A1) in view of McPhee (US 3829906 A), in view of Newburger (US 3614791 A), in view of Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1), and further in view of Brown (US 20220307247 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho teach the limitations set forth in Claim 8.
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho fail to explicitly teach the sink is configured to inflate into the sink deployed position, and deflate into the sink retracted position.
However, Brown teaches the sink is configured to inflate into the sink deployed position, and deflate into the sink retracted position (“The present invention relates to an inflatable sink device 100” Par. [0029] lines 4-5).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger, Pho and Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of adjustable sink design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sink of Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho to be inflatable as disclosed by Brown. Doing so would reduce the required space for the sink while not in a deployed position. Inflatable sink structures are known in the art and are not considered novel.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnos et al. (US 20200102078 A1) in view of McPhee (US 3829906 A), in view of Newburger (US 3614791 A), in view of Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1) and further in view of Brown (US 20220307247 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho teach the limitations set forth in Claim 8.
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho fail to explicitly teach the sink comprises: a flexible outer main body defining an internal cavity; and an inflatable fluid circuit within the internal cavity, wherein the inflatable fluid circuit is configured to be in fluid communication with a fluid source.
However, Brown teaches the sink comprises: a flexible outer main body defining an internal cavity; and an inflatable fluid circuit within the internal cavity, wherein the inflatable fluid circuit is configured to be in fluid communication with a fluid source (“The present invention relates to an inflatable sink device 100. The device 100 is primarily comprised of a body 110, further primarily comprised of a top tank 140, a bottom tank 150, a sink basin 124, an air pump 160, a battery 170, a water pump 180, and a faucet 190” Par. [0029] lines 4-9).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger, Pho and Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of adjustable sink design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sink of Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho to be inflatable as disclosed by Brown. Doing so would reduce the required space for the sink while not in a deployed position. Inflatable sink structures are known in the art and are not considered novel.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnos et al. (US 20200102078 A1) in view of McPhee (US 3829906 A), in view of Newburger (US 3614791 A), in view of Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1) and further in view of Brown (US 20220307247 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho teach the limitations set forth in Claim 8.
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho fail to explicitly teach at least a portion of the sink is formed of a transparent thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU).
However, Brown teaches at least a portion of the sink is formed of a transparent thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (“Further, the body 110 may be made of a plurality of rubber materials such as natural rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, butyl, nitrile, neoprene, ethylene propylene diene monomer, silicone, viton, polyurethane, hydrogenated nitrile, etc. The body may also be made of a flexible or semi-flexible plastic material such as, but not limited to: acrylic, polycarbonate, polyethylene, thermoplastic, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, low density polyethylene, medium density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, polylactic acid, acetal, nylon, fiberglass, etc. In addition, the body 110 may be transparent, semi-transparent, or opaque in differing embodiments” Par. [0029] lines 13-25).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger, Pho and Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of adjustable sink design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sink of Gnos, McPhee and Pho to have a portion formed of a transparent thermoplastic polyurethane as disclosed Brown. Thermoplastic polyurethane is known in the art to be a reliable material and is commonly used throughout lavatory structures. The use of transparent thermoplastic polyurethane is known in the art and is not considered novel.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnos et al. (US 20200102078 A1) in view of McPhee (US 3829906 A), in view of Newburger (US 3614791 A), in view of Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1) in view of Brown (US 20220307247 A1) and further in view of Boodaghians et al. (US 20170297718 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Gnos, McPhee, Newburger, Pho and Brown teach the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger, Pho and Brown fail to explicitly teach the TPU is embedded with an antimicrobial agent.
However, Boodaghians teaches the TPU is embedded with an antimicrobial agent (“Non-limiting examples of potential materials include metallic materials, nonmetallic materials, flexible materials, rigid materials, or any combination thereof. It is also possible to provide one or more coatings along internal portions of any of the conduits. Non-limiting examples of potential coatings include antimicrobial coatings, nonstick coatings, anti-scale coatings, or any combination thereof” Par. [0058] lines 3-10).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger, Pho, Brown and Boodaghians are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of lavatory sink design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sink of Gnos, McPhee, Newburger Pho and Brown to have the antimicrobial agent as disclosed by Boodaghians. Doing so would prevent microbial growth on the sink and would improve the cleanliness of the system. Antimicrobial agents are known in the art and are not considered novel.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1) in view of Yi Ki et al. (KR 20110010184 A) and further in view of Long (US 3263935 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Pho teaches an enclosed space, comprising: a sink moveably secured to one or both of a floor or one or more walls (Shown in Fig. 3A), wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position (Shown in Fig. 3A)and a sink retracted position (Shown in Fig. 6), wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet.
Pho fails to explicitly teach the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls, and wherein a size and a shape of a basin of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position.
However, Yi Ki teaches the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls (Retraction of the sink basin shown in transition between deployed position of Fig. 1 and the retracted position of Fig. 2).
Pho and Yi Ki are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the retractable sink of Pho to retract into the wall in the way disclosed by Yi Ki. Doing so would reduce the risk of water damage as folding the sink would be more likely to cause water spillage if the sink is not completely dry before folding.
Pho and Yi Ki fail to explicitly teach and wherein a size and a shape of a basin of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position.
However, Long teaches and wherein a size and a shape of a basin of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position (Shown in transition between Fig. 3 and 4).
Pho, Yi Ki and Long are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sink of Pho in view of Yi Ki to have the changing size and shape of the basin reduced as disclosed by Long. Doing so would provide a reduced area required in the wall for the retraction of the sink.
Regarding Claim 14, Pho, Yi Ki and Long teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Pho further discloses the enclosed space is a lavatory (Shown in Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 15 Pho, Yi Ki and Long teach the limitations set forth in Claim 14.
Pho further discloses the lavatory is within an internal cabin of a vehicle (“The present invention relates to apparatus and methods for increasing useable space within a mobile platform compartment, such as an aircraft lavatory” Col. 1 lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 24, Pho, Yi Ki and Long teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Pho further discloses a distal end of the sink in the sink deployed position extends outwardly toward a center of the enclosed space, and wherein the distal end of the sink in the sink retracted position is inwardly receded from the center of the enclosed space (Shown in transition between Fig. 3A and Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1) in view of Yi Ki et al. (KR 20110010184 A), in view of Long (US 3263935 A) and further in view of Brown (US 20220307247 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Pho, Yi Ki and Long teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Pho, Yi Ki and Long fail to explicitly teach the sink is configured to inflate into the sink deployed position, and deflate into the sink retracted position.
However, Brown teaches the sink is configured to inflate into the sink deployed position, and deflate into the sink retracted position (“The present invention relates to an inflatable sink device 100” Par. [0029] lines 4-5).
Pho, Yi Ki, Long and Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of adjustable sink design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sink of Pho in view of Yi Ki to be inflatable as disclosed by Brown. Doing so would reduce the required space for the sink while not in a deployed position. Inflatable sink structures are known in the art and are not considered novel.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1) in view of Yi Ki et al. (KR 20110010184 A), in view of Long (US 3263935 A) and further in view of Brown (US 20220307247 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Pho, Yi Ki and Long teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Pho, Yi Ki and Long fail to explicitly teach the sink comprises: a flexible outer main body defining an internal cavity; and an inflatable fluid circuit within the internal cavity, wherein the inflatable fluid circuit is configured to be in fluid communication with a fluid source.
However, Brown teaches the sink comprises: a flexible outer main body defining an internal cavity; and an inflatable fluid circuit within the internal cavity, wherein the inflatable fluid circuit is configured to be in fluid communication with a fluid source (“The present invention relates to an inflatable sink device 100. The device 100 is primarily comprised of a body 110, further primarily comprised of a top tank 140, a bottom tank 150, a sink basin 124, an air pump 160, a battery 170, a water pump 180, and a faucet 190” Par. [0029] lines 4-9).
Pho, Yi Ki, Long and Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of adjustable sink design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sink of Pho in view of Yi Ki to be inflatable as disclosed by Brown. Doing so would reduce the required space for the sink while not in a deployed position. Inflatable sink structures are known in the art and are not considered novel.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1) in view of Yi Ki et al. (KR 20110010184 A), in view of Long (US 3263935 A) and further in view of Brown (US 20220307247 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Pho, Yi Ki and Long teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Pho, Yi Ki and Long fail to explicitly teach at least a portion of the sink is formed of a transparent thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU).
However, Brown teaches at least a portion of the sink is formed of a transparent thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (“Further, the body 110 may be made of a plurality of rubber materials such as natural rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, butyl, nitrile, neoprene, ethylene propylene diene monomer, silicone, viton, polyurethane, hydrogenated nitrile, etc. The body may also be made of a flexible or semi-flexible plastic material such as, but not limited to: acrylic, polycarbonate, polyethylene, thermoplastic, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, low density polyethylene, medium density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, polylactic acid, acetal, nylon, fiberglass, etc. In addition, the body 110 may be transparent, semi-transparent, or opaque in differing embodiments” Par. [0029] lines 13-25).
Pho, Yi Ki, Long and Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of adjustable sink design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sink of Pho in view of Yi Ki to have a portion formed of a transparent thermoplastic polyurethane as disclosed Brown. Thermoplastic polyurethane is known in the art to be a reliable material and is commonly used throughout lavatory structures. The use of transparent thermoplastic polyurethane is known in the art and is not considered novel.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1) in view of Yi Ki et al. (KR 20110010184 A), in view of Long (US 3263935 A), in view of Brown (US 20220307247 A1) and further in view of Boodaghians et al. (US 20170297718 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Pho, Yi Ki, Long and Brown teach the limitations set forth in Claim 18.
Pho, Yi Ki, Long and Brown fail to explicitly teach the TPU is embedded with an antimicrobial agent.
However, Boodaghians teaches the TPU is embedded with an antimicrobial agent (“Non-limiting examples of potential materials include metallic materials, nonmetallic materials, flexible materials, rigid materials, or any combination thereof. It is also possible to provide one or more coatings along internal portions of any of the conduits. Non-limiting examples of potential coatings include antimicrobial coatings, nonstick coatings, anti-scale coatings, or any combination thereof” Par. [0058] lines 3-10).
Pho, Yi Ki, Long, Brown and Boodaghians are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of lavatory sink design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sink of Pho, Yi Ki and Brown to have the antimicrobial agent as disclosed by Boodaghians. Doing so would prevent microbial growth on the sink and would improve the cleanliness of the system. Antimicrobial agents are known in the art and are not considered novel.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnos et al. (US 20200102078 A1) in view of McPhee (US 3829906 A), in view of Newburger (US 3614791 A), in view of Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1) and further in view of in view of Yi Ki et al. (KR 20110010184 A).
Regarding Claim 20, Gnos teaches a vehicle comprising: an internal cabin; and a lavatory within the internal cabin (“It is also known to install a toilet in the front of the cabin and to allow transforming a part of the front of the cabin into a closed lavatory compartment when using the toilet” Par. [0005] lines 1-4), wherein the lavatory comprises: a toilet (Fig. 3 element 9) moveably secured to one or both of a floor or one or more walls, wherein the toilet comprises a bowl having a base, and a drain extending through the base (“FIG. 9 shows a waste hose 21. The open end of the waste hose, i.e. the loose end which is closest to the viewer of FIG. 9, is configured to be connected to a bottom of the toilet bowl 9 (not shown in FIG. 9)” Par. [0067] lines 4-7), wherein the toilet is configured to be moved between a toilet deployed position and a toilet retracted position, wherein the toilet in the toilet deployed position allows an individual to sit on the toilet, and wherein the individual is unable to sit on the toilet in the toilet retracted position (Shown in transition between the retracted position shown in Fig. 1 and the deployed position in Fig. 3); and a flexible conduit connected to the drain (Fig. 9 element 21), wherein the flexible conduit is configured to connect the flexible conduit to a waste removal tank (Fig. 9 element 22).
Gnos fails to explicitly teach a surface of a seat of the toilet in the toilet retracted position is parallel with the one or more walls and the flexible conduit is exposed when the toilet is in the toilet retracted position; and a sink moveably secured to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls, wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position and a sink retracted position, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls and wherein a water-retaining capacity of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position.
However, McPhee teaches a surface of a seat of the toilet in the toilet retracted position is parallel with the one or more walls (Fig. 2 element 23).
Gnos and McPhee are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory unit systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toilet seat of Gnos to fold parallel to the wall in the retracted state as disclosed by McPhee. Doing so would allow the toilet to be stowed in a manner which would require less volume of the lavatory space.
Gnos and McPhee fail to explicitly teach the flexible conduit is exposed when the toilet is in the toilet retracted position; and a sink moveably secured to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls, wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position and a sink retracted position, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls and wherein a water-retaining capacity of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position.
However, Newburger teaches and the flexible conduit is exposed when the toilet is in the toilet retracted position (Flexible conduit shown to be exposed in transition between Fig. 8A and 8B where the flexible conduit connected to element 12 is shown in the folded position).
Gnos, McPhee and Newburger are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory unit systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toilet system of Gnos in view of McPhee to have the exposed flexible conduit as disclosed by Newburger. Doing so would reduce the cost of the system as less material is needed to cover the internal toilet components while allowing for a reliable drainage system.
Gnos, McPhee and Newburger fail to explicitly teach a sink moveably secured to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls, wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position and a sink retracted position, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls and wherein a water-retaining capacity of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position.
However, Pho teaches a sink moveably secured to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls, wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position (Shown in Fig. 3A) and a sink retracted position (Shown in Fig. 6), wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet, and wherein a water-retaining capacity of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position (The amount of water retained in retracted position shown in Fig. 6 would be less than in the deployed position shown in Fig. 3A).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lavatory system of Gnos and McPhee to have the retractable sink structure as disclosed by Pho. Doing so would allow the lavatory to have a larger sink when a sink is desired and more lavatory space when a sink is not desired.
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho fail to explicitly teach the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls.
However, Yi Ki teaches the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls (Retraction of the sink basin shown in transition between deployed position of Fig. 1 and the retracted position of Fig. 2).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger, Pho and Yi Ki are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the retractable sink of Pho to retract into the wall in the way disclosed by Yi Ki. Doing so would reduce the risk of water damage as folding the sink would be more likely to cause water spillage if the sink is not completely dry before folding.
Regarding Claim 21, Gnos, McPhee, Newburger, Pho and Yi Ki teach the limitations set forth in Claim 20.
Gnos and Pho further disclose the lavatory provides: a first floor plan when the toilet is in the toilet deployed position, and the sink is in the sink deployed position, a second floor plan when the toilet is in the toilet retracted position, and the sink in the sink retracted position, a third floor plan when the toilet is in the toilet deployed position, and the sink is in the sink retracted position, and a fourth floor plan when the toilet is in the toilet retracted position, and the sink is in the sink deployed position (Stated floor plans would be provided with deployed/retracted sink of Pho and deployed/retracted toilet disclosed by Gnos).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gnos et al. (US 20200102078 A1) in view of McPhee (US 3829906 A), in view of Newburger (US 3614791 A), in view of Pho et al. (US 6889936 B1) and further in view of in view of Yi Ki et al. (KR 20110010184 A).
Regarding Claim 22, Gnos teaches a method, comprising: moveably securing a toilet (Fig. 3 element 9) to one or both of a floor or one or more walls of an enclosed space within an internal cabin of a vehicle (“It is also known to install a toilet in the front of the cabin and to allow transforming a part of the front of the cabin into a closed lavatory compartment when using the toilet” Par. [0005] lines 1-4), wherein the toilet comprises a bowl having a base, and a drain extending through the base (“FIG. 9 shows a waste hose 21. The open end of the waste hose, i.e. the loose end which is closest to the viewer of FIG. 9, is configured to be connected to a bottom of the toilet bowl 9 (not shown in FIG. 9)” Par. [0067] lines 4-7), wherein the toilet is configured to be moved between a toilet deployed position and a toilet retracted position, wherein the toilet in the toilet deployed position allows an individual to sit on the toilet, and wherein the individual is unable to sit on the toilet in the toilet retracted position (Shown in transition between the retracted position shown in Fig. 1 and the deployed position in Fig. 3) and a flexible conduit (Fig. 9 element 21) is configured to connect the flexible conduit to a waste removal tank (Fig. 9 element 22).
Gnos fails to explicitly teach a surface of a seat of the toilet in the toilet retracted position is parallel with the one or more walls, and exposing a flexible conduit connected to the drain when the toilet is in the retracted position, and moveably securing a sink to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls, wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position and a sink retracted position, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls, and wherein a water-retaining capacity of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position.
However, McPhee teaches a surface of a seat of the toilet in the toilet retracted position is parallel with the one or more walls (Fig. 2 element 23).
Gnos and McPhee are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory unit systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toilet seat of Gnos to fold parallel to the wall in the retracted state as disclosed by McPhee. Doing so would allow the toilet to be stowed in a manner which would require less volume of the lavatory space.
Gnos and McPhee fail to explicitly teach exposing a flexible conduit connected to the drain when the toilet is in the retracted position, and moveably securing a sink to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls, wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position and a sink retracted position, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls, and wherein a water-retaining capacity of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position.
However, Newburger teaches exposing a flexible conduit connected to the drain when the toilet is in the retracted position (Flexible conduit shown to be exposed in transition between Fig. 8A and 8B where the flexible conduit connected to element 12 is shown in the folded position).
Gnos, McPhee and Newburger are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory unit systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toilet system of Gnos in view of McPhee to have the exposed flexible conduit as disclosed by Newburger. Doing so would reduce the cost of the system as less material is needed to cover the internal toilet components while allowing for a reliable drainage system.
Gnos McPhee, and Newburger fail to explicitly teach moveably securing a sink to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls, wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position and a sink retracted position, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet, wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls, and wherein a water-retaining capacity of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position.
However, Pho teaches moveably securing a sink to one or both of the floor or the one or more walls, wherein the sink is configured to be moved between a sink deployed position (Shown in Fig. 3A) and a sink retracted position (Shown in Fig. 6), wherein the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to receive and retain water from a faucet, and wherein a water-retaining capacity of the sink in the sink retracted position is reduced compared to when the sink is in the sink deployed position (The amount of water retained in retracted position shown in Fig. 6 would be less than in the deployed position shown in Fig. 3A).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of pivotable lavatory structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lavatory system of Gnos in view of McPhee to have the retractable sink structure as disclosed by Pho. Doing so would allow the lavatory to have a larger sink when a sink is desired and more lavatory space when a sink is not desired.
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger and Pho fail to explicitly teach the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls.
However, Yi Ki teaches the sink in the sink deployed position is configured to move into the sink retracted position by receding into the one or more walls, wherein the sink in the sink retracted position is configured to move into the sink deployed position by outwardly moving away from the one or more walls (Retraction of the sink basin shown in transition between deployed position of Fig. 1 and the retracted position of Fig. 2).
Gnos, McPhee, Newburger, Pho and Yi Ki are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of retractable lavatory systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the retractable sink of Pho to retract into the wall in the way disclosed by Yi Ki. Doing so would reduce the risk of water damage as folding the sink would be more likely to cause water spillage if the sink is not completely dry before folding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025, pertaining to independent claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the cited prior art fails to disclose the flexibly conduit configured to be coupled to a waste removal tank. The examiner respectfully disagrees as Gnos teaches the flexible conduit (fig. 9 element 21) and the waste removal tank (fig. 9 element 22). Applicant states that the cited prior art does not show the flexible conduit is exposed when the toilet is in the retracted position. Although the examiner agrees that the flexible conduit of Gnos is not exposed, Newburger was introduced to show that exposed flexible drain conduits are known in the art and that it would have been obvious to implement.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 have been considered but are moot due to the new ground of rejection relying on Long (US 3263935 A) as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644